The Greatest Good


Socialists often talk about the “greater good”, but rarely do they mention the “greatest good”. That’s because they have a difficult time qualifying “good”, and thus, cannot reasonably determine whether one good is greater than another. So instead they resort to a rhetorical flourish designed to confuse the listener.

The greatest good is, of course…

If you can’t answer the previous question, it is because you are having your own struggle with good and evil in your own life. You cannot tell, for yourself, what is good and what is not.

If you have decided that the universe is meaningless, and we are random blips on the cosmological scale, then you are in agreement with the Christian: mankind is not the greatest good. In fact, it’s debatable whether there is any inherent good in mankind at all, in and of itself. Hence the people running around the world proclaiming that we should all just commit genocide on ourselves for the “good” of the planet.

But if you define good as something to do with life, then you understandable disagree with the whole “let’s commit genocide on ourselves” idea.

Let’s run with this idea: good has something to do with life. Therefore, more life means greater good. And the most life of all is the greatest good. Is this not agreeable?

Now, we have come to a conclusion: that which creates the most life is the greatest good.

So how do we create life? Through childbirth. But simply bringing a child into this world is not enough. It is agreed that to simply give birth to children and then to leave them to their own devices is not good. Children need a caregiver, someone who volunteers to sacrifice their life in the interests of the child. This is a good thing, because by sacrificing their own life, they give life to the next generation, and thus expand life at the maximum rate.

If this caregiver instills in the child a sense of duty to do the same to the following generations, then we have an even greater good.

Now, we know from biology that there are two genders: male and female. Which gender provides superior child care? The answer is both. Both are critical to the child-rearing process. Those children who are raised lacking one or the other grow up to be lacking. Scientific studies have proven this time and time again.

We arrive at the final point in our destination. Let us review. The greatest good is:

  • That which creates life
  • That which rears life under the optimal conditions, which is under the care provided by a loving male and female who have sacrificed their life for their child.
  • That which instills in the child a duty to do the same in the next generation.

If it isn’t obvious what the conclusion is, then let me spell it out for you. The Greatest Good is marriage, or the marriage that leads to childbirth and the rearing of children for the purpose of marriage.

We can argue from this point on whether rights supercede the Greatest Good, or whether the rights are simply a means to the Greatest Good. Let me explain.

We say, in our founding documents, that all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Why? This is not explained explicitly.

However, in that phrase, one word should stand our above the rest: “Creator”, meaning, one who creates. So, if the Creator does something, what is the purpose of the act? To create. To create what? To create men–people, you and I, us.

Why then, did the Creator give us rights? To create men, people, you and I, us.

The purpose of our rights is to prolong our lives and to establish even more life. That is, they are a means to an end. We protect our rights because by doing so, we protect life and the Greatest Good, the institution of marriage and child-rearing in families.

Why do we institute governments that execute murderers, raise armies to protect our borders, and protects the rights of the people to arm and defend themselves? To protect the institution of marriage and families.

Why do we institute governments to mandate liberty, abolish slavery, and ensure that men are free to act for themselves, for their own purposes? To protect marriage and the family.

Why do we institute governments to protect people’s properties from injustice and theft? To protect marriage and the family.

It’s really simple, really. The Greatest Good is the family and marriage and child-rearing and instilling in our children the duty to do the same. In order to maximize goodness, we have established that people have unalienable rights, so that they are free to marry and bear children and raise them in the conditions they determine to be optimal.

When we use our rights to defend anti-life behavior, we have destroyed the argument that created those very same rights in the first place. Does a man have a right to leave his family? No, he does not. Do we as a society have a right to force the father out of the family? Of course not, unless by not doing so we put members of the family in jeopardy.

I think that’s why I get so upset about the concept of homosexual marriage. It’s not because I hate gays—I don’t. I love them with the same love I try to love everyone, and ask that they repent just as I ask everyone to repent of whatever sins they have. Yes, everyone is sinful, and everyone needs to repent, even the gays.

Homosexual marriage, like no-fault divorce, out-of-wedlock childbirth, and the culture of promiscuity that besets us, will not lead to greater happiness for the individual or the society at large. It is, in short, a death-inducing poison, that which destroys life and the process whereby we create life. To adopt that into our society, and even to elevate until it is comparable to the Greatest Good is no different than drinking poison, poison which will lead to our own deaths.

If you can’t understand this, answer me this: If we build a society where sex is not confined to marriage, where homosexual people are encouraged to act on their perversions, and where family rearing is not the primary goal in everything we do, what will we end up like? The answer is simple: dead. Our society and all its institutions will disappear. If we don’t die from the invading hordes of people who don’t like us and want to kill us, we will die because we have no children and thus no future. When the last of our society’s members finally dies of old age, so will all of our institutions.

Compare that to a society that elevates marriage and child-rearing to the highest priority. Like a creature that is alive, it grows and reproduces and strengthens against all forms of disease and destruction. As long as it can continue down this road, it will continue to create lives and living and happiness and unending institutions.

My message is simple and clear: The greatest good is marriage and child-rearing in homes with a loving father and mother. Our rights and institutions we build from those rights all exist to protect and support and enhance this institution. To do anything less is to embrace death.


4 Responses to “The Greatest Good”

  1. tensor Says:

    I will ask again, for about the fourth time in several threads: since you have yourself framed your entire opposition to gay marriage in terms of children, do you consider childless heterosexual couples to have moral equality with childless gay couples? If so, shouldn’t each set of couples have the same legal standing, especially in the country where “all men are created equal”?

    (By the way, “the creator” was not in Jefferson’s first draft of The Declaration. Franklin wanted an explicit reference to the Christian god, and “the Creator” became their compromise. Reference to “the Creator” is therefore further proof, if anyone should still see a need for such proof, that in our great country “… the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”)

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Re: Creator: Cite your sources. Jefferson’s draft read: “We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable;[2] that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights[3] inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;” While teh Creator is not mentioned by name, the act of the Creator, the creation of men, is very explicit, mentioned twice in one sentence

      Re: Childless heterosexual couples: If you marry with the intent to simply live together, you are not fulfilling the greatest good. The greatest good is building life through bearing children, and raising those children to bear more children. Couples that are medically incapable of bearing children have been known to bear children, so we cannot judge the future based on our limited medical understanding.

      If it were possible to determine which couples were compatible and which ones weren’t, which individuals were sterile and which ones weren’t, then I think that would be important information that the spouse would like to know. They may decide, at that point, to adopt children as their own.

      I am not completely convinced that single-parent households are incompetent in raising children. There is a lot of evidence that widows and widowers do just as well as dual-parent homes, while divorcees and unmarried single parents do not do so well. If the body of scientific understanding shows that certain family arrangements are sub-optimal, then we should, as a society, discourage these family arrangements. These discouragements should start with religious proclamations, societal pressure from friends, family, and culture, and perhaps, in extreme cases, the law. Note that we already have law that will separate a child from his parent when it is obvious that the child is better off in another family.

      In practical terms, this means telling people:
      * Don’t practice sex outside of marriage, because you may bring a life into this world and this life will be severely disadvantaged because of your stupid, short-sighted choices.
      * Don’t divorce except in extreme cases, because the damage to the children is too great.
      * Do marry with the intent to bear children, which is the greatest good of all.

      Homosexual couples can never provide both the loving father and mother, and so have no rights to raise children as do heterosexual couples, sterile or not. The body of research showing the importance of heterosexual parents is too solid already. Too compare one to the other is just absurd.

  2. tensor Says:

    Wow, that was a lot of words, and you have yet to answer my question: do you consider childless heterosexual couples to have moral equality with childless gay couples? Please answer with a single word, “yes” or “no”, and then explain your reasoning behind your answer.

    Your long, irrelevant non-answer contains these two clues, which seem to contradict each other:

    Re: Childless heterosexual couples: If you marry with the intent to simply live together, you are not fulfilling the greatest good.

    This implies you would answer my question with a “yes”.

    Homosexual couples can never provide both the loving father and mother, and so have no rights to raise children as do heterosexual couples, sterile or not.

    This implies you would answer my question with a “no”.

    (And, please spare us your failed dodge about not knowing if a given heterosexual couple will produce children. Unless you’re seriously expecting an eighty-year-old woman to be, um, expecting anytime soon.)

    (As far as Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration, you have already admitted his original draft contained no explicit reference to a deity. I included that to eliminate any possibility anyone could plausibly claim that the author of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” had the Christian gods in mind.)

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      You cannot say that an eighty year old woman will not conceive. I can, however, state with absolute authority that a homosexual couple cannot conceive. Thus, there is a huge difference between a heterosexual and homosexual couple.

      I also stated that children need both male and female parents, and homosexual couples cannot provide this. Therefore, even if the couple is sterile and will never concede (which we cannot state with absolute certainty), they will still be able to raise children under optimum conditions.

      If a male and female couple marry with the intent to only live together and never raise children, we cannot state with absolute authority that they will always feel this way. And since even if they are sterile, they can still be parents male and female, while homosexual couples cannot, we see that there is no moral equivalence between the two, sterile or not.

      On Thomas Jefferson’s original draft, if I stated that “WE ARE CREATED”, does this not imply a Creator? If so, then Thomas Jefferson did imply a Creator, although not explicitly, but implicitly by stating twice that we are created.

      If he, instead, wrote that we find ourselves in this certain mortal state, with no understanding of where we came from or for what purpose we exist, then I would have to agree with you in saying that Thomas Jefferson didn’t believe in a Creator.

      By the way, the arguments that our Founding Fathers were not religious or did not adhere to the Christian concepts of religion are absurd. Don’t go down that road.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: